The U.S.- Israel Relationship: Fact and Fiction

What is the truth about the Israel lobby?

David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, was invited recently to address the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin to respond to the appearance the previous month of Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of The Israel Lobby.

Last month, this Council was addressed by two American academics who recently authored a book entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The book, and the articles that preceded it in the London Review of Books and on the website of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, have received some attention both in the United States and Europe.

Let me assure you: I have no interest in selling books for Professors Walt and Mearsheimer. I'm not here to add to what some would describe as the "controversy" surrounding their book. I'm here because the Council graciously invited me to balance their perspective with a different one.

I have been asked to address this distinguished audience about the so-called Israel lobby in the United States -- or, more generally, about the place of Israel in America. It's my pleasure to do so.

The argument in The Israel Lobby is complex, and describing it here risks some simplification. But among the authors' key points are:

They support Israel's right to exist, and reject any implication of anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism on their part. They also deny that they are leveling charges of dual loyalty against American supporters of Israel.

They do, however, believe that a powerful Israel lobby exists in the U.S. They believe this lobby has succeeded in stifling debate about the Middle East, in part by being quick to label critics of current U.S. policy as anti-Semites.

While defending the right of American interest groups to lobby, they ascribe to the so-called Israel lobby, which is broadly and rather ambiguously defined, extremist tactics and a penchant for seeking to silence or intimidate its opponents.

They assert that this lobby has managed to divert the U.S. from pursuing its true national interest in foreign policy.

They claim that this lobby and its natural allies, including evangelical Christians and neo-conservatives, led the U.S. into a fateful decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

They argue that Osama Bin Laden and his followers detest the U.S. principally because of American support for Israel.

They contend that Israel, as an occupying nation, has lost its moral claim on America. Moreover, that in the post-Cold War era, Israel no longer serves American strategic interests. Indeed, they claim Israel has become a strategic liability.

And they state that Israel's existence is not threatened, not even by Iran, and that therefore the existential argument used by the Israel lobby to gain support is essentially a non-starter.

Of course, there is more to the case they present, but these are some of the highlights.

So what should we make of all this? What is the truth about the Israel lobby?

It is said that the formula or recipe for Coca-Cola is kept in a vault somewhere in Atlanta, Georgia, and only a handful of people have access to it.

I have zero interest in Coca-Cola. So I've never spent a moment thinking about how to get inside.

But I am prepared this evening to unlock the vault and reveal the secret of the so-called Israel lobby and its success in the United States.

The truth may come as a disappointment to some. It is quite different -- and far less splashy -- than the image conjured by the speakers here last month, who seem to revel in the image of intellectual martyrdom and victimization that they create.

They portray themselves as targets of a powerful machine that wishes to silence them. If that's the case, then the machine has done its job rather poorly.

This invented victimization is even more exaggerated in the case of Jimmy Carter.

Professors Walt and Mearsheimer have had their names in every major American newspaper. Their book has been published by a major American publishing house. They've given speeches all across the country and around the world, and have become minor international celebrities.

This invented victimization is even more exaggerated in the case of Jimmy Carter, whose work as a former president I generally respect. President Carter was given virtually every media platform in America to promote his book. And each time, he claimed that debate on the Middle East was being silenced, even as he discussed -- guess what? -- the Middle East.

The reality is the opposite. When he was invited to debate at two major American universities -- Brandeis and Emory -- former President Carter refused. He would only appear if his views were unchallenged, and he insisted, we are told, that questions from the audience be screened beforehand.

So much for the vaunted power of the Israel lobby to silence its critics. Then how can we explain this?

Here is the secret: There is no single Israel lobby.

There are several Israel lobbies. And they spend as much time fighting with each other as seeking to make their case in the halls of power.

This should come as no surprise.

For one thing, this diversity of views reflects the broader diversity one finds in Israel, in its multitude of political parties, debates in the media, and discussions in the Knesset. Israel's parliament has 18 parties represented in only 120 seats.

For another, it reflects Jewish nature. It's no secret that Jews make an art form out of argument and disagreement. And Jews viscerally reject notions of hierarchy. They say: Who is that individual or that organization to tell me how I should think?

I've spent a lifetime in Jewish communal politics. And like anyone else who has done so, I bear the scars of internal disagreement. On a daily basis, as a centrist organization, the American Jewish Committee contends with Jewish groups on our left and right in the Middle East debate.

The Right to Lobby

The existence of so many pro-Israel lobbies exists brings me to my second point. The right to lobby -- the right to petition the government -- is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The authors acknowledge this, and they defend the right to lobby. But they still end up casting aspersions on the so-called Israel lobby in particular.

I know that for some in Europe the word "lobby" has negative implications, and, let's be frank, especially when it's joined with the words "Jewish" or "Israel."

Just about every racial, religious, ethnic, business, agricultural, trade union and other group lobbies.

But in the U.S., the word "lobby" is anything but pejorative. Lobbying has been a feature of American life for a very long time. Perhaps the best observer ever of America, Alexis de Tocqueville, noted this 170 years ago in his magisterial Democracy in America. He said that Americans tended to form "voluntary associations," coming together in groups to advance a common purpose.

Today, just about every racial, religious, ethnic, business, agricultural, trade union and other group does so -- and often vigorously. Lobbying is the name of the game, and the object of the game is to prevail.

There is nothing wrong with that, so long as it is within the letter of the law.

In the realm of foreign policy, there are many non-governmental actors in the U.S., including, yes, the pro-Israel community.

There is also a powerful Armenian community, a Cuban community, a Greek community, an Irish community, etc. And yes, there is an Arab lobby (or, in reality, several), even though the authors put this term in quotation marks in their book, as if to call into question whether it really exists. Indeed, it does exist and its goal is to re-orient U.S. foreign policy away from its close ties with Israel.

Maybe next time someone should write a book about the Saudi lobby, perhaps the most powerful interest group of all in the realm of foreign policy actors.

With an impressive arsenal of former American diplomats, members of Congress, academics, paid lobbyists on Washington's K Street corridor, and businessmen singing the praises of Saudi Arabia and Saudi-U.S. relations, and with tens of millions of dollars flowing from Saudi donors to prestigious American universities like Harvard and Georgetown, the Saudi lobby wields considerable influence.

Each interest group seeks to leave an imprint on American foreign policy. Each has the right to do so. No one should begrudge the other's right to try. And no one should cast aspersions on those who succeed -- again, as long as they play by the rules.

Incidentally, lobbying is not unique to the U.S., of course. It exists in Europe. Recently, the European Commission began an effort to voluntarily register the thousands of lobbying groups that have emerged in Brussels, all of whom seek to influence EU policy in one direction or another. In democracies, lobbies debate national priorities.

National Interest

And this leads me to the third point, the national interest. The authors make the argument that the so-called Israel lobby has diverted U.S. foreign policy from the country's national interest. Really?

Who decides what exactly is the American national interest? Is it to be left to a self-selected group of academics to make that determination, assuming they can reach agreement among themselves?

If a majority of the American people and their elected officials determine that U.S. support for Israel is warranted and welcome, then shouldn't this definition of the national interest at least be given serious consideration, rather than summarily rejected?

There is a certain, forgive me, arrogance or conceit in ascribing to oneself the job of defining the national interest, and in dismissing the views of others -- the majority -- as uninformed, parochial or short-sighted.

Recently, a fierce debate arose in Washington and elsewhere over a proposed congressional resolution labeling the killing of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey between 1915 and 1923 as genocide. The debate pitted Armenians and their supporters against Turkey and its supporters. A similar debate occurred not too long ago in France, when the National Assembly took up a similar issue.

Whatever side of the argument you happen to choose, it is fair to say that one could make a case that one's position aligns with the national interest.

Similarly, let's look at Germany.

Clearly, there is more than one view as to what ought to be the national interest regarding China, as was revealed in the debate over the visit of the Dalai Lama. Or, regarding policy towards Russia.

In both of those cases, it essentially comes down to whether the national interest, above all, is principally defined by status quo and economic interests -- what's good for the German economy and its export-focused industries is good for Germany -- or, if you will, by values interests -- democracy and human rights are the principal drivers of the national interest.

So what do Americans think is in their national interest?

Americans Identify with Israel.

This is the fourth point. The authors of The Israel Lobby inexplicably overlook the key to the success of the pro-Israel community in the United States: The vast majority of Americans believe in the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

This stark and simple fact has been confirmed time and time again, in poll after poll, over many years and against the backdrop of many different situations in the Middle East.

Americans identify with Israel. They identify with its democratic institutions. They identify with its struggle for survival. They identify with its friendship for the U.S. They identify with its battle against terrorism. They identify with its pioneering, can-do spirit. They identify with its immigrant- and refugee-based culture. And they identify with its protection of the Holy Land.

Consider the case of President George W. Bush. Other than African-Americans, no other identifiable racial, religious, or ethnic group voted against President Bush as heavily as Jews did.

Only 19 percent of American Jews supported him in 2000. Only 24 percent supported his re-election -- despite the fact that he is perhaps the most pro-Israel president in American history. And, reportedly, only 12 percent of Jews voted Republican in the 2006 congressional elections.

Jewish history and the Hebrew Bible have always had a special resonance in American history.

Clearly, the Jewish vote and the so-called lobby were not the deciding factor in George Bush's outlook on Israel and the Middle East. Far more important are his own sense of right and wrong, friend and foe, and his own religious beliefs and historical perspective.

In fact, Jewish history and the Hebrew Bible have always had a special resonance in American history. Many early Americans saw themselves as living out the narrative of the children of Israel reaching the Promised Land.

The first European immigrants spoke of building the new Jerusalem, the shining "city on a hill." Thomas Jefferson, joined by other leaders like Benjamin Franklin, proposed a national seal that would depict the exodus from Egypt on one side.

If you go to Philadelphia and visit the Liberty Bell, the symbol of American freedom, you'll see that the inscription on it reads: "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof." Where does that come from? Leviticus -- the Hebrew Bible.

This identification with the Jewish people also shaped President Harry Truman's decision to support the new State of Israel -- against the wishes of his own Secretary of State, George Marshall.

When the U.S. became the first country to recognize Israel, Truman said, "I am Cyrus! I am Cyrus!" He saw himself as the Persian emperor who let the Jews return home from exile. And to explain his views, Truman cited his favorite psalm, Psalm 137: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion."

If most Americans didn't still identify with Israel, they could change American policy.

A majority of the members of the U.S. Senate come from states where there are a combined total of 175,000 Jews -- 0.33 percent of these states' total population. Even if they were motivated and in agreement, could such an insignificant group -- 1 in 300 -- truly wield such influence if they didn't enjoy much broader support?

Consider another fact. In August 2007, a national poll revealed that Americans ranked Israel as our country's fourth closest ally, after Britain, Canada and Australia. (And, incidentally, ahead of Germany.)

This may be difficult for self-proclaimed practitioners of the "realist" school of international relations to grasp. After all, they see a sea of 22 Arab countries, hundreds of millions of residents, energy sources, export markets, and, behind it all, a vast arc of the Muslim world.

Under these circumstances, why should Israel count at all? If it's to be a zero-sum game, then the answer should be obvious, shouldn't it?

The U.S. sees Israel as an asset -- a democratic, pluralistic nation, friendly to the U.S. and dependable as an ally, in a region vital to American interests.

But in reality, it's not a zero-sum game. The U.S. enjoys strong ties with a range of Arab and other Muslim-majority countries, and has always sought to juggle its ties with Israel and its links with other countries.

And the U.S., to its credit, sees Israel not as a liability, but an asset -- a democratic, pluralistic nation, friendly to the U.S. and dependable as an ally, in a region vital to American interests.

It's Not About Israel

And here is my last point.

The authors of The Israel Lobby misread the Middle East map and mindset.

Bin Laden would have masterminded the September 11 attacks even had Israel not existed or had the U.S. been estranged from it. His world view goes far beyond Israel, as has repeatedly been shown. To reduce his weltanschauung to Israel is to reveal a lack of understanding of his theology and eschatology.

And even if Bin Laden were single-mindedly obsessed with Israel, would that be reason enough to call on the U.S. to succumb to political blackmail and abandon Israel in order to appease him? Because that's what it would be: blackmail.

The war in Iraq was a decision of the Bush Administration, made from the very top. To suggest otherwise implies that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet and the others involved in the fateful choice were mere puppets of fiendish Jewish minds.

This, unfortunately, does have a resonance with a history of alleged Jewish conspiracies plotting to undo nations from within. The authors repeatedly state that they are not anti-Semitic, nor are they anti-Zionist. I take them at their word. It is not useful to question their motives.

Their argument itself cannot help but evoke memories of books like the notorious tsarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

But their argument itself cannot help but evoke memories of books like the notorious tsarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And so, too, does the cover of the book's German edition, which continues a tradition of ugly images that replace the stars on the American flag with Stars of David.

History shows the tremendous damage inflicted by words and images like these. I accept the authors' assertion that their motives are pure, but their claims nonetheless stir troubling echoes. It reminds me of the description coined by former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers, who famously commented that a divestment campaign against Israel was "anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent."

Instead of perpetuating old myths, let's face the real facts.

Were there Jews in government in support of an Iraq invasion? Yes, there were. Were they acting as Jews in voicing their support? Difficult, if not impossible, to tell, though I would strongly argue that they were acting in their capacity as U.S. officials.

Were there Jews opposed to the invasion? Yes, there were many. In fact, according to polls taken before and after the invasion, Jews opposed the war in greater proportions than other Americans. A new poll released just last week by AJC confirms the same. You can see the numbers on the AJC website.

Was Israel involved in pushing the U.S. to war, as some have alleged? There is no evidence to support this assertion. Indeed, in my contacts with Israeli leaders going back to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, it was clear that Iran, not Iraq, preoccupied Israeli decision-makers.

Iraq was an enemy, yes, in its professed hatred for Israel, support for radical groups, and financial assistance to the families of suicide bombers. But, unlike Iran, it was not seen as a potentially existential threat to Israel.

And, pray tell, was Prime Minister Tony Blair also pushed to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq by the same Israel lobby? That would be even harder to believe than the American case.

Maybe -- just maybe -- there is another explanation. Indeed, there is.

Israel is in Danger

And this brings us to the contention that Israel is not in danger, and that this argument of the pro-Israel community should therefore be discounted.

Israel is in danger. That ought to be obvious. I take no comfort from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. As long as Iran enriches uranium and builds missiles, may be hiding nuclear-related facilities, and expresses the desire for a world without Israel, the danger, as I said, should be obvious.

History ought to have taught us to take demagogues at their word. Failure to do so cost us dearly. We cannot allow another incapacity for imagination.

And Israel is also faced with dangers closer to its borders, including a rump state, Gaza, whose leadership seeks not to build its own nation, but to destroy a neighboring one, Israel.

Have we become so inured, so anesthetized to the language of hatred and incitement coming from Gaza, so accustomed to the daily barrage of rocket and mortar attacks hitting Sderot and other towns in southern Israel, that our judgment of reality has become clouded?

And while I hope and pray that the post-Annapolis environment will lead to a breakthrough in talks between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas, I am under no illusion about the wide gap between the two sides. There are many minefields along the way, and Israel will be asked to take risks for peace that no other nation I know -- and most assuredly no nation victorious on the battlefield against enemies who sought its destruction -- has ever been asked to take.

Many will say that it's all about the settlements, that the burden to advance the process lies entirely on Israel. I agree that the settlements pose a significant challenge for peacemakers, but the core issue of the conflict, which began long before Israel came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 war, remains the same.

Is the Arab world ready, at long last, to truly accept the presence of a non-Arab, non-Muslim state -- whatever the final borders -- in its midst?

The Saudi/Arab League initiative offers a glimmer of light, but there is more that needs to be said and done.

We see many maps showing the Israeli presence in the West Bank. But where are the other maps?

Where is the map that shows what Israel would look like if it withdrew to the 1949 Armistice Lines, leaving its main international airport and principal population centers as easily reached by rocket and mortar attacks as Sderot is today?

And where is the map of Israel, two-thirds the size of tiny Belgium, dwarfed by its neighbors? Look at a larger map of the Middle East: Israel, which is one percent the size of Saudi Arabia and two percent the size of Egypt, can barely be found.

I proudly participate in the pro-Israel movement in the United States.

I do so because I believe there is a unique relationship, established over 3,000 years ago, between a people, a land, a faith, a language and a vision.

I do so because that link is unique in the annals of history.

I do so because I believe that Israel has a right to exist in secure and recognized boundaries.

I do so because I believe Israel's right to exist has not yet been assured, and that the dangers to the state are clear and present.

I do so because I believe that Israel has already demonstrated its capacity to advance the frontiers of human knowledge and has so much more to offer the world, including its neighbors.

I do so because I believe the link between the United States and Israel is vital for Israel's security and, no less, for its pursuit of genuine peace.

I do so because I believe there is no substitute for the role of the United States in the life of Israel, and I will do my utmost to confront those who would seek to drive a wedge between Washington and Jerusalem.

I do so because I believe that democracies need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with one another in common purpose and common defense.

I do so because I cannot accept, sixty years after the Holocaust, that some six million Israelis live in danger, targeted by those who openly declare their desire to drive the Jews into the sea.

And I do so because I believe I am expressing the highest democratic and aspirational values of the United States when I express my support for Israel.

Visitor Comments: 12

(12)
Anonymous,
January 25, 2008 12:26 AM

American Academia is rife with Islamic interests agenda instigation against the Jewish State

This articles misses the point. Annoyingly so! Those needing to be placed on the defensive is certainly not Israel nor those representing Israel's interests in practicing what every nation and State practices by virtue of America being a democracy in which lobbying the government and its officials is a totally acceptable practice! Why has Israel been singled out for demonization in doing what is practiced in Washington by other States and their hired representatives as routine? "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is nothing less than a scurrilous attack qualifying as anti-Semitic and needs to be viewed in its proper context. Its libelous! Exposure of its promulgators and "study" funders "The Israel Lobby..." "professor" authors would be a far better approach than that of Israel defending itself in providing another point of view to a professional audience.

Indeed, one need only look to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright having served in the highest reaches of the American Government during Pres. Bill Clinton's administration. Upon leaving office Albright ensconced herself in a most financially lucrative job as lobbyist for an Islamic State. As such, Dubai! As well how about referencing former VP Al Gore serving as liaison or lobbyist upon leaving office for a foreign State as well. How about former President Jimmy Carter as a highly paid operative serving Islamic States' agenda against the Jewish State? Another example of an author of "a book" published to incite against the Jewish State.

The question begging answer is exactly which foreign States are thus represented and entrenched in positions through sophisticated lobbyist schemes influencing American foreign policy? Their calling is all over this book as well. An atrocious effort to give veracity to the libeling of Israel under cover of "a study".

It would be more productive to focus on the targeting of academia by foreign agencies and their agents forging a bulwark of anti-Semitism on university campuses! One major example was that of the late Professor Edward Said catapulted into prominent position at Columbia University and going on to author a book claiming it to be an autobiography. However, upon basic scrutiny after much play and support by its American publisher and our media, proven to be closer to fiction than fact! Indeed, its intent to libel Israel and present "Palestinians" as victims its agenda. An indoctrination feat! Falsehoods, libels and slander against the Jewish State were accepted in large measure because of his academic standing at Columbia University. There is a pattern here! Hold accountable the accusers and promulgators of lies and liars not, in fact, its intended victim!

Israel lobbying is legitimate and lobbying is practiced by all States. Why the singling out of Israel?

(11)
mordecai,
January 22, 2008 8:57 AM

AAHH Finally

How about the environnmental NGO's and lobby groups that are actually driven Palestinian supporters, what does that have to do with saving trees- until recently the palestinians were killing the trees being planted by the Keren Kayemet not the other way around.And what about the murderous suppression of the technology to run engines (all engines) on water inexpensively and safely turned into hydrogen storage- this makes the whole energy industry one big burglary! Hands UP! Thumbs down! The Emperor of Rome (not the USA - ROME!) was given the honors- But now religious people around the world are going to give G-d an opportunity to choose--- finally!Under those conditions I am all for the glaliadors in fact I am priviledged to be in the rink as well as anyone else who choses to do so.!

(10)
Daniel,
January 21, 2008 4:06 PM

I have found it fascinating and eye-opening to read this article about the nature of lobbying in the U.S. Putting to rest the critique on the Jewish Lobby; to learn that there are many and in some respects are factional.

In truth, where one nation is to act upon another there are many interests involved within that relationship.

Certain points I would like to add here. When it comes down to deciding the national interest, impartial and unbiased truth is the most precious interest. On this basis can social justice (whether in the preservation of identity, in self-defence, or in the spread of welfare) be truly achieved. In a world where one nation must support the other in furthering its own real-interests, without the undermining of sovereignty, the whole truth, impartial truth is vital.

Without this truth, there's no real justice, nothing affirmed, and no reconciliation, where there had been a history of errors.

Arab states should respect the fact that there has always been a Jewish presence in the land of Israel. That a state of Israel had once existed and can now and should exist. And that as long as Arabs are able to live their lives in peace within the state of Israel, enjoying the same opportunities as its citizens, then there should be satisfaction from all sides. Arabs can live peacefully wherever they wish. They only have to be desire to live peacefully.

The desire for land is not as important as the preservation of human life. The life of the Arab is as important as the life of the Jew. Why? because we are people. Our reason to be, is not to have land but, but to live justly with our fellows. A Justice that incorporates neighbourliness should be the highest national interest to all for the following reasons Historically both have claims to the land, but there is space enough for both. Both sides have clamoured for what does not belong to any one man but to the Creator who made it, who preconditions that those who inhabit it should live in a just and loving manner towards their neighbour, not in anger and hate. That has been the whole lesson of the Jewish history. At the core of the conflict both sides clamour because one is afraid that the other would deny their rightful share to inherit it. It is true that there are remaining lessons for both sides in learning to respect each other. But above all, none must forget that only those who live justly would inherit it. From the religious as well as the secular point of view this is true. The Palestinian Arab should refrain from continued acts of terror, though they may feel it is for vengeance; maybe the loss of a family member in the ongoing conflict and war; they should refrain from the continuation of this warfare, on the basis that they would only destroy theirselves and their country. At the same time, they would undermine the claims to inherit the land, because, their history of terrorism simply diminishes their claims to be able to live in a peaceful and just manner. As terror-thugs they cannot live in a land where justice and right doing has always been demanded of those who live in it by the Creator from a religious point of view.

They only undermine their posterity and would have to learn the lesson, that it is the meek that will inherit the earth. No one can claim to deserve to live in a kingdom of heaven until we show on earth that we are willing to live according to its designs- notably the love for the Creator, and the appreciation for one's neighbour as one appreciates oneself; this concept can be expressed in many ways.

(9)
Homer,
January 21, 2008 3:58 PM

More US Support Needed, Not Less

The sad fact is that the Islam groups have dumped enough money in US centers of higher learning that they can have people such as Iran's leader to speak to our youth while anyone pro-Israel is shown the door. Our newspapers condemn when Israel defends itself and yet never show the Islam murderers for who they really are! No Israel is not perfect - not until their King rules from Jerusalem, but I'd rather support Israel thru thick and thin than to not do anything to defend their right to every inch of land G-D promised to the Jews. G-D bless Israel and pray for peace in Jerusalem!!!

(8)
Elizabeth,
January 20, 2008 6:47 PM

May God truly and richly bless you, let's pray that the US will always support Israel,thank you for bieng so active in deffending Israel.

(7)
Anonymous,
January 20, 2008 6:09 PM

Harris Makes Naive Comments

Thank you for sharing Mr. Harris' well-written and heart-felt views, but I must disagree on his comment that: "â€¦ he [President Bush] is perhaps the most pro-Israel president in American history." That (unfortunately), has not yet happened. His actions to date have served only the interests of the U.S., not Israel, our most valued ally in the Middle East.

I personally hold President Bush in the highest regard. I know that he is a man of integrity, honor and conviction, but he is just a man. And, during his presidential tenure, he has made some serious errors that have endangered (and not helped) the nation of Israel.

What propels Mr. Harris to make such a naive comment? I think that it would be wise for persons to stop confusing photo ops with successful foreign policy, diplomacy and action. President Bush has been in office over seven years and has only recently (and in great public spectacle) sought to bring peace to Israel. Considering the President's fast-approaching exit from office, just how effective do you think his actions will be? President Bush brought war to the Middle East and toppled two governments at great expense in dollars and lives. Although I am in agreement that these two regimes needed to be toppled, the execution of the objective was abysmal. This alone has made the region far more precarious for Israel. Just like Presidents Carter and Clinton, President Bush waited until the end of his term to address the issue of peace in and for Israel.

If President Bush is such a great friend to Israel, why did it take him seven years to visit? Also, he knows that Annapolis was a total failure. It seems that he simply needed to do something to upstage both Presidents Carter and Clinton â€“ he needed the shebang climax to get some of the recognition his predecessors received for the "Roadmap to Peace." His actions have not cut to the heart of the conflict that faces the nation of Israel. Instead, he painted a veneer for the world as if to say, we're for peace in Israel, yet his policies make no concrete contribution to the establishment of that peace.

Since the President's visit to Israel, he approved the sale of U.S. missiles and other military technology to Saudi Arabia. Now think for just a minute on these four items:1-most of the 9-11 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia2-the 9-11 hijackers were financed by groups in Saudi Arabia3-Saudi officials have commented that "America begged for such an attack, because of their foreign policy."4-many insurgents throughout Iraq and Afghanistan are thought to be funded and staffed by both Saudi Arabian and Iranian citizens.

Either President Bush is lacking common sense, or his actions make him no 'pro-Israel' friend. Israel needs to do whatever it can to obtain peace on its own terms. It needs to stop allowing itself to be controlled and bullied by so-called pro-Israel governments.

Does Mr. Harris honestly believe that the American public holds lobbyists in high regard? The truth is that most U.S. lobbying groups are NOT held in high regard.

As naÃ¯ve as Mr. Harris' comments seems to me, his last eleven paragraphs assure me that he is needed on the Hill as a lobbyist, doing whatever possible to promote Israel's concerns to the representatives of the U.S. government. Perhaps the truth will prevail with his efforts.

(6)
Anonymous,
January 20, 2008 2:30 PM

Just a few comments...

I agree with the author, maybe someone should write a book about the Saudi lobby. As he said, "perhaps the most powerful interest group of all in the realm of foreign policy actors". In American politics unfortunately, "political correctness" has corrupted the democratic process with a rather fluid value system (if we can call such a fluid mix of none sense "values") that will adapt to the ever changing political environment. I have seen a move in the media to highlight the so call great relationship with the kingdom (by no means the United Kingdom). If there is one think to consider, is that our trust shall not rest in lobbies and political action or alliances. Political support for Israel has and will continue to change as history has demonstrated so many times. However, the all powerful King and Creator of the universe will never forget His people. If there is a need to lobby, approaching the Kingdom of Heavens and seeking His mercy is the best "political" move ever.

(5)
ARTHUR PEARL,
January 20, 2008 12:19 PM

excellent article.

These authors and the former President, Jimmy Carter, clearly show a anti-Israel anti-semetic attitude which is very much like what we have seen for years by those wishing for the destruction of the Jewish People.The article was very well done and presented. I would encourage as wide a distribution as possible.

(4)
Pearl,
January 20, 2008 10:44 AM

Great Article!

THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THIS INSPIRATIONAL ARTICLE! GOD BLESS YOU RICHLY!

(3)
Leonard Ives,
January 20, 2008 9:30 AM

Every word in your artical is true

Love reading your artical and made a copy of it to show my children and grand children the artical. I volunteered 3 years to work with the Ser- al in Israel. My wife and I submitted our names to volunteer again.

(2)
Jane Burkhead,
January 20, 2008 9:23 AM

great article

I am a 1/2 Jew 1/2 gentile person who has always been interested in what is going on in Israel & disturbed at the lopsided info we receive. It helps to subscribe to the ICEJ news letter. Thanks for posting this great article.Janie Burkhead @ janie77@sbcglobal.net

(1)
Darrell,
January 20, 2008 9:20 AM

I Support Israel

I support Israel and their right to "exist"! Arabs, specifically Muslim Arabs are bent on world domination like Hitler's Germany in WWII. If we let them, we can expect a repeat of the holocaust except this time, Christians AND Jews both will perish. They like to use Israel as an excuse when it has nothing at all to do with anything other than religious persecution. We are in WWIII, and it's a war with Islam. I stand with Israel, even if it means standing on a wall to defend her!

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...